Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections on Their Science
Education: Implications for Instruction
Ingvild Roald
Vestlandet Resource Center
Norwegian Support System for Special Education
In this study, undertaken in an attempt to expand our understanding of science learning by deaf students, five teachers
are interviewed about their views, based on their own experiences as Deaf students. They are all my former students and
were among the first to successfully complete the upper secondary school with a university entrance certificate from a
Norwegian school for deaf students. Physics was their major
subject. These teachers see the systematic work in class discussions, especially on the concepts of physics, as a major
contributor to their success, and they try to use similar methods in their own teaching. They believe that a thorough discussion of a topic using sign language prior to the reading of
the textbook is crucial.
This study examines the views of five Norwegian Deaf
teachers on science learning by deaf students, as well
as the means best suited to enhance understanding and
learning. As these teachers were successful pioneering
students, among the first deaf students to complete the
upper secondary school in Norway, their views on science education would be of considerable interest. What
factors do they think contributed to their success?
What are the differences between the learning possibilities for today’s deaf children in Norway as opposed
to their own possibilities as deaf learners? What are important considerations when they themselves teach?
These are the major questions asked in the interviews.
Through the answers to these questions, we may gain
insight into special considerations needed when teachCorrespondence should be sent to Ingvild Roald, Vestlandet Resource
Center, Jonas Lies vei 68, N-5058 BERGEN, Norway (e-mail: ingvild.
[email protected]).
 2002 Oxford University Press
ing science to deaf students. Some results may be generalizable to other school subjects.
The Norwegian Educational System
In the national Norwegian school system, all children
are in school from the age of 6 (before 1997, from the
age of 7) to the age of 16. Most children will attend
local schools, run by the municipality, but there are also
alternative private schools. This compulsory schooling
is called the comprehensive school, divided into a primary stage for ages 6–12 and a lower secondary stage,
usually in a different school, for ages 13–16. The curriculum is national, with some local adaptations. The
assessment is done both continuously and by final examinations given nationally.
When the years in the comprehensive school are
finished, most (90%⫹) young people will go on to a
county school, which gives upper secondary education.
These schools are divided into two main branches, one
of general studies and one vocational. Each of these
branches is again divided. In the first year, there are 3
courses of general studies and 10 courses of vocational
studies. During the second year in upper secondary
school, more courses are offered, dividing the students
further. For the vocational areas of study, many continue after finishing the second year in school for 2
years of apprenticeship before they receive their final
guild’s certificate, but some will stay in school for a
third year. For the general studies, a certificate for entering into universities or colleges will be awarded after
58
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:1 Winter 2002
successful completion of a course that takes 3 years (the
level would approximate a finished first year at a U.S.
college for subjects that the student has chosen to study
for 2 or more years in upper secondary school). The
examination is administered by a national board and
evaluated by representatives from a county board.
Most teachers in the comprehensive school have a
degree from a 4-year teachers’ college, where the main
focus is general. They will have some specialization of
their choice, sometimes a full year of specialization in
one subject. The focus on science teaching in teachers’
colleges is generally minimal. In the lower secondary
school, some teachers are specialists from the universities, having at least one full year of each subject of their
specialization (30 credits in U.S. terminology), with a
total of 31⁄2 years (lower university degree) of subject
studies, plus 1 year of teachers’ training.
To teach in the general area in upper secondary
school, a university degree is needed. This may be the
lower degree just mentioned, or the advanced degree,
adding 2 years of study of the major subject of the
lower degree. To teach in the vocational branches, two
guilds’ certificates are needed, some years of practice,
and a 2-year technical college degree. In upper secondary school, the teachers all have 1 year of teachers’
training beyond their specialization.1
The first school for Deaf students was founded by
the government in 1825 and run by a Deaf teacher. The
Norwegian Deaf education became oralist-dominated
quite early, and from 1886 until about 1970, signing
was not used and was often forbidden in the schools for
deaf students. These schools were compulsory for deaf
children until 1975. When the prevailing winds
changed and signing was reintroduced in the 1970s, the
model was the “total communications method,” which
included many invented signs. The Norwegian Deaf
Federation encouraged this method and the invention
of signs to be used simultaneously with spoken language. The academic expectations of deaf students remained low well into the 1980s (Basilier, 1973; Grønlie,
1995; Peterson, 1995; Sander, 1980). Sign language was
not understood as a language in its own right in Norway until a white paper was published by the government in 1985 (Kirke-og Undervisningsdepartementet,
1985), on “Some Aspects of Special Education.” From
that time onward, Norwegian Sign Language (NSL)
has been utilized more and more, both in the Deaf
community and in schools for the deaf, as well as being
taught to parents of deaf children.
Norway has a small population (4.5 million people)
scattered over a large and topographically difficult area.
Before air travel became common, deaf students often
had to stay at school all year, visiting their home only
in the summer, the main holiday in Norwegian schools.
Even today, students in upper secondary school (16–20
years of age) are entitled to only seven trips home per
year.
Before 1976, there was no standard curriculum for
deaf students. From 1976 to 1991, the curriculum was
the same for deaf and hearing children. Since 1991, the
deaf students can choose a “Deaf ” curriculum within
the subjects Norwegian, Norwegian Sign Language,
English, British Sign Language, and Drama with
Rhythm. The other subjects are identical for all students. Since 1991, Norway has established four National Resource Centers for Deaf Education in addition
to one for deaf students with other severe handicaps
and one for the upper secondary education of the hard
of hearing. All four centers have primary and lower secondary schools (ages 6 to 16) and also serve students
who choose to be mainstreamed. One of the four centers, Vestlandet Kompetansesenter, has two upper secondary schools (in different cities) catering to students
from all over the country. The largest of these schools is
Bjørkåsen Upper Secondary School in Bergen, where
I have been teaching mathematics and science/physics
since 1975. From 1997 onward, all deaf children have
had the right to be educated in and about sign language; and their parents are given 40 weeks of full-time
instruction in sign language, with full financial reimbursement, during the first 16 years of the child’s life.
Participants
The five participants, the former students who are now
themselves teachers, are adult members of the small
Deaf community in Norway. Statistics on the deaf population is hard to obtain (Grønlie, 1995), but the Norwegian Deaf Federation has about 3,000 members,
among these some hearing spouses and parents of Deaf
persons, as well as some hearing teachers. Because the
Deaf community is so small, some information that
should normally have been part of a research report
will be missing in this article for privacy reasons.
Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections
Four participants were in the two pioneer physics
classes at Bjørkåsen, graduating in 1988 and 1989.
These physics classes included two other students, one
who is also a teacher but could not participate and one
who has chosen another career. The classes thus had
six students altogether. The fifth participant was at the
time a student at a technical college, where I acted as
support teacher cum interpreter in physics and mathematics. The discussions about concepts and signs that
took place in the pioneering classes were carried over
to this student.
The school authorities estimate that in all of Norway, between 30 and 50 students in each age cohort
are deaf or severely hard of hearing (Eikli, 2000). This
estimate includes students with additional handicaps.
Thus, the six deaf physics students in the classes constitute between 6% and 10% of their age cohorts. The
percentage of the total Norwegian age cohorts in 1988
and 1989 who took their finals with physics as a major
subject was about 10 (editor of Fra Fysikkens Verden
[FFV], 1999). Thus, we are not dealing with an extraordinary minority of deaf students, but with a similar proportion as in the general student population.
The Norwegian grading system ranges from 0 (hardly
anything learned) to 6 (excellent), with 2 as the passing
grade. In those years the mean grade of the physics majors in Norway was 2.78 (SD ⫽ 1.44) (Rådet for Videregående Opplæring, 1988a, 1989), while the mean
grade of the students in these two classes was 2.83 for
the year but 2.33 on their exams (Bjørkåsen Videregående Skole, 1988–1989).2 All participants passed,
and their exam grades were well within the standard
deviation. The examination and evaluation were according to normal national standards (not “adapted”
because of their hearing condition). The Third International Science and Mathematics Studies (TIMSS)
has shown Norwegian standards of high school physics
in those years to be among the highest in the world
(Mullis et al., 1998). The exam grades for the first class
were probably skewed in a negative direction by the examination method, as they had the ordinary Norwegian
5-hour written examination, which includes essays on
physics topics. The second class received an adapted
examination form, as thorough and as demanding in
physics content but not as dependent on mastery of the
Norwegian written language. This examination form
was official and commended by the examination au-
59
thorities (Rådet for Videregående Opplæring, 1988b).
This is in accordance with Lang’s (1994a) proposition
that “[t]he goal of the assessment should be to evaluate
how well the student learned the science topic, not how
well s/he can read the test item” and also confirms
with the results from the study by Shaw (1997) of science assessment of English language learners. The
examination grades of the second class were more in
accordance with the year grades. The results of the
participants are remarkable, especially in light of the
generally poor achievement of deaf students reported
around the world (Lane, 1993; Livingston, 1997;
Moores, 1987).
The participants all had their primary schooling
before the revolution of deaf education in Norway. If
their parents or teachers learned any sign language, it
was of their own accord, on their own time, and at their
own expense; and the sign language they did learn was
mostly “Signed Norwegian.” No courses on the grammar and syntax of Norwegian Sign Language were
available, and Deaf people tried to switch to the Signed
Norwegian code whenever they were conversing with
hearing people, resulting in a limited exposure for the
teacher to the natural Norwegian Sign Language.
Of the five participants, three were prelingually
deaf. One became deaf due to meningitis during early
childhood, and the fifth participant was born with a
progressive hearing loss. Four of the participants had
all, or almost all, their primary and lower secondary education in schools for the deaf, whereas one completed
the school years in ordinary schools and then came to
Bjørkåsen for a final year. Three are comprehensive
school teachers (first to tenth grade) with the appropriate college degrees, and two are upper secondary
school teachers, one with an advanced university degree in one of the sciences, and one in a vocational
branch with all the qualifications needed, as already explained.
Method
Theoretical Foundations
The aim of the study was to describe the views of these
Deaf teachers, using a strategy of open-ended interviews. The qualitative data obtained in this way are analyzed to yield categories of conceptions or meanings
from the interviewed participants concerning the top-
60
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:1 Winter 2002
ics covered. The method, known as phenomenography,
is described by Neuman (1986), Ramsden (1988), and
Renström (1988). The interviews in this study were
conducted and analyzed in this tradition.
The Interviews
The interviews were planned as conversations between
pairs of participants, with some occasional questions
from the interviewer. This method has been shown to
reduce the effects that may be introduced when the
participants are familiar with the interviewer (Haugen,
1998; K. Slethei, personal communication, 1999). One
of the interviews was with one participant only, because
one of the former students could not participate. They
were conducted with the video camera running but no
camera operator present. The five participants knew
each other and the interviewer, their former physics
teacher. They had received a personal letter beforehand, stating what sort of information was sought (my
translation):
You were one of the first Norwegian deaf students who got a chance to learn science and physics
at such an advanced level. The work we did in class
at that time was new and difficult for all of us.
Nevertheless, you did well, and that has always
been a marvel to me. That’s why I will try to figure
out what we did right, and also if we did something
that was not wise.
Later on, you yourself chose to become a
teacher. That means that you will be able to look at
the education you got yourself in a different light.
I would like to have an interview/conversation
with you and others in the same situation. I intend
to group you together in pairs; I will be in the
room, but not very active in the conversation. I will
make sure to find a time and place that is convenient for you. I thought that you could be together
with (name).
In that conversation I would like you to talk
about how it was to be a student then, and how you
think it is to be a deaf student now. Do you remember anything from our way of working? How do you
evaluate that way of working? Was there anything
that was especially difficult? I would like you to talk
about things like that. And also about what you
yourselves think about teaching, and if some of the
experiences you had as students have influenced
you to do things the same way, or to do them a
different way.
The questions were repeated at the beginning of the
interviews, but from then on, the interchange ran
freely, except when it was necessary to pose a question
to get the conversation back in focus. The interviews
were translated into Norwegian and transcribed from
the videotapes. The transcriptions and the videotapes
were then sent to the participants for approval. It was
made very clear that they were free to withdraw information they had provided in the interview and also to
make revisions. No external interpreter was involved,
as the participants themselves controlled the interpretation through this process. Thus, it is this written
form of the interview that is analyzed. It was also understood that any part of this article that I thought
might be sensitive would be translated into Norwegian
and sent to them for approval before the article was
submitted for publication.
In preparing for the interviews, I used my own
notebooks from the period when I was teaching the
participants. They hold plans for each lesson, notes on
what was accomplished, grades given, instructions and
reports for lab exercises, and full solutions of problems
to be solved at home or in school, with extra explanatory notes. These solutions were often copied as handouts after a problem had been graded and handed back
to the students. In Norwegian schools, multiple choice
problems are rarely used; rather, the emphasis is on
problems that need extensive explanations in the
solving.
Each interview lasted for about 90 minutes. Most
of the time the topics were covered according to plan.
Pain was taken during analysis to ascertain that the
quotes and summaries do truly reflect the material on
the problem at hand. Any discrepancies among the interviewees should be reflected in the quotations. The
quotes do not identify the participants, but each quote
is from one person only. I am identified as “interviewer” if the statement is a comment or a question
from the interviewer, but as “teacher” if it is a reference
to my role as a teacher in one of the quotes from the
Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections
participants. Most quotes stand alone, but some are
part of a dialogue. In these instances, the new participant in the conversation is marked in a separate paragraph, while the different parts of that dialogue are
kept together. Any word or phrase in brackets is my
addition, made from inferences from the dialogue.
According to the phenomenographic approach, the
views of the participants are the main focus of study. In
the following pages, their views on science and physics
education are presented, as well as general discussion
of past and current educational conditions for deaf
children in Norway.
Results
Educational Conditions
Participants were asked what they thought about the
situation of deaf children today, compared to their own
childhood situations. Their responses centered around
six themes:
1. Change in attitudes. They noted the positive
change in attitude regarding deafness and sign language that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
This has resulted in more awareness about what it
means to be Deaf and better self-esteem among deaf
children. All participants point out that the youngest
deaf children get the most benefit of the new program
of sign language for deaf children and their parents,
mentioned above, as it is so recently implemented.
2. Change in amount of information. They thought
that today’s deaf children do not lack information to
the same extent as they did as children. But they also
note that there still is, and will continue to be, a lack of
general information:
Yes, we have lost a lot . . . in the family, in the conversation around the dinner table, on visits, . . .
hearing people, they talk and talk; and even some
of the science information, on television—, we
have lost a lot.
The changed attitudes and the new sign language program enhance communication between children and
parents. This now gives deaf children access to a source
of information that the interviewees themselves lacked.
Again, they see younger deaf children as getting the
61
most benefit from the new program, as their parents
could get into this program when the children were
very young. Nevertheless, according to the interviewees, the information gap between deaf and hearing students will never be completely filled. This problem has
been pointed out by others (Stewart, 1996).
3. Teaching methods. The methods of teaching
that participants experienced in comprehensive school
are not the same as those they encountered at Bjørkåsen Upper Secondary School, where they received
their physics education. At Bjørkåsen, the method was
usually open and based on discussions among students
and teacher.
[In comprehensive school] we had a one-to-one relationship with the teacher, and if we had any problems, we asked the teacher.
Participants see the ways of teaching even in primary
school today as more like the approach they experienced at Bjørkåsen, and they prefer this more open and
group-based approach. An example from one of their
physics lessons is given in an article on the Internet
(Roald, 2000).
When I’ve been teaching, I’ve been very conscious
to remember how we used to discuss things in class.
I’ve tried never to disrupt the subject discussion
between students. That is the fundamental thing,
this contact, this discussion about the subject matter. I teach for a while, . . . and then they are free
to discuss among themselves for a while. And if I
see them discussing something under the desk, I
ask: “What are you discussing?” And if the student
answers: “I just asked my mate here to explain” and
this is about something that I have just been saying,
I go back, and try again to build the understanding
so they can discuss it afterwards. I say to them:
“You are allowed to talk about the subject matter
at hand.”
The participants all view this method of discussion and
cooperation in class as very positive and a major factor
in good learning. Cooperative learning is also recommended by the literature (e.g., O’Donnell & Adenwalla, 1991).
4. Curriculum changes. Participants remember
that when they were students in primary and lower sec-
62
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:1 Winter 2002
ondary school, curriculum was changed and reduced.
This adaptation was made by the school personnel,
based on what they believed to be the abilities and educational needs of deaf students. The adaptation was accomplished both by reducing the curriculum content
and by simplifying the language in the texts the students used:
Adapted—I remember, much of the material used
at school was made there, was “adapted.” . . . I
compared it to my [hearing] brother’s, it was not
the same things that were taught.
In physics, I do not think I knew anything before
we started, there was nothing inside my head, I was
completely green before I started [science education at Bjørkåsen], I believe. I had zero knowledge
about that, zero.
This is in accordance with general trends in deaf education (see, for instance, Bunch, 1987). For their own
students, they claim that they try to cover the same
curriculum as other schools do (as they are expected
to),3 but they find themselves pressed for time.
5. Change in expectations. Participants remember
that when they were children, the schools did not expect much from the deaf students:
I first came to the school for hard of hearing students. Later on I switched to a school for the deaf,
and switched language, yes, I did. . . . But I felt that
the level there was very low, very much lower.
When we did something right, we got patted on the
back and told “Oh, you are so clever,” but it was
nothing, really.
Low expectations are also in accordance with general
trends in deaf education (Schleper, 1995). Today Norwegian deaf children are expected to learn pretty much
the same as other children.4
6. Qualifications of their teachers. The participants
recall that the qualifications of the teachers they had
as children were often poor, especially regarding sign
language. Even after they had finished upper secondary
school, they met teachers with poor signing skills. The
qualifications of the teachers are seen as better today,
but not good enough:
I got an offer to become an assistant at the primary
school. . . . So I started at the primary school, with
the small children, and I was shocked! Many of the
teachers had very poor sign language skills, so I had
to interpret. . . . And I thought: This cannot go on!
So I decided to become a teacher of deaf students.
So I see that today we are much further advanced,
the teachers are well qualified, and they sign fluently, that helps a lot.
The education for teachers of the deaf today is not
good enough. . . . A good teacher who can adapt
his/her teaching to deaf students, must understand
Deaf culture, Deaf history, Sign Language, and
must also have a good attitude in addition to general knowledge and insight in the subject s/he is
teaching.
That teachers of deaf students are often not themselves
well educated in the subject matter is documented in a
number of studies (e.g., Lang & Propp, 1982). As for
sign language proficiency, the teachers of Norwegian
upper secondary schools for deaf students did not get
any serious NSL instruction until the late 1990s.
The participants believe that a good teacher of deaf
students should be a fluent sign language communicator and also have a thorough knowledge of the subject
matter in order to adapt the teaching to the deaf students. Their own teachers did not fulfill these requirements.
Summary of participants’ views of conditions for modern
Deaf children. We may conclude that the participants are
well aware of the differences in the circumstances of
their own childhood from that of their students. We
also sense that they feel they lost both information and
contact with peers and family, as well as with teachers
at school. The major differences between themselves
as children and Norwegian Deaf children of today are
attributed to the general acceptance of Deafness and
the acceptance of sign language that follows. This new
acceptance yields better development for the child,
with better self-esteem, higher expectations from the
teachers, and better communication between parents
and children, as well as between teachers and students.
Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections
Participants are still not satisfied with the education and qualifications of teachers of deaf students.
They point to a lack of fluency in sign communication,
to a lack of proper knowledge of Deaf history and Deaf
Culture, and also to a lack of knowledge of the school
subject. But even if these things were rectified, participants believe that deaf children will lose something:
they will never get all the general, circumstantial information that comes so easily to hearing people.
Participants’ Views on Their Physics Education
Participants were asked to think back to their experiences in physics classes. They were asked about what
they could remember of the way we worked and their
feelings about it then. They were also asked to give
their opinion of these methods as educators of deaf
children or youngsters. Their responses centered on
six main themes.
1. Concepts and signs. The participants all agreed
that the classes focused heavily on conveying an understanding of the concepts and on finding a suitable way
to express that concept in NSL. They also agreed that
this work on the concepts and signs helped them understand better.
First you [teacher] wrote and drew on the blackboard and explained to us, and we tried to understand, and then we discussed amongst ourselves
how we had understood the concept. And then it
became clear to us, then we had grasped the content. And then we went on to the next and the next.
[To the other participant in this interview, who had
belonged to the other class:] Do you agree?
Yes.
I remember you [teacher] asked: What is the sign
for this? And I answered: I do not know. And you
explained the concept, what it meant, and then we
made a sign together. That’s how we worked.
Interviewer: Do you think that it was a good
thing, when I explained the concept, and we discussed what might be a good sign for it, do you
think that helped you understand?
If we did not get a sign, it would have been very
difficult for me to understand. Now we got signs,
63
and explanations, and the same sign each time we
talked about that concept. And that way I understood better and better.
There was a lot of work on the signs. But next time
we used the same sign, so it became easier. And you
used the blackboard, and wrote the word or concept, what does it mean, explanations, discussions,
explanations on the blackboard too [to the other
participant:] Is that right, lots written on the blackboard, and drawings?
Yes, in my class too.
It took lots of time, some of the concepts were very
demanding, it was hard work.
Generally, new signs are supposed to develop from use
between a large group of signers who know the subject.
Our way of creating signs in a classroom, with a hearing teacher far from fluent in sign language as a major
participant, would not be deemed appropriate (Caccamise, Smith, Yust, & Beykirch, 1981). Discussions
about this topic is ongoing (Gregory, 1997). However,
participants were not negative about this way of devising signs:
This was about the new concepts, it was a language
belonging to the subject. We had to agree on an interpretation of the meaning of the concept and
then agree on a sign. In this way the [Sign] language gets richer, it expands.
Well, I think that before—the discussions we had
in the science classes—the development that has
gone on has made things change—the teacher no
longer asks “what is the sign for. . . .” No, we now
see that we do no longer need to discuss signs like
before, but the methods: what is the best way here?
Because we have signs now. We have the foundation, and then more signs will follow, and then we
will have to consider them and see which signs will
live on. And then signs for certain terminologies
will evolve. And it will become part of the total sign
vocabulary. It will be the development into the
future.
In NSL, fingerspelling is dropped as soon as possible,
and a sign is substituted (O. I. Schrøder, e-mail com-
64
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:1 Winter 2002
munication, 1999). This sign may use the initial letter
of the word. It may also be based on an established sign
modified by mouthing the Norwegian word.5
2. Experiments. Participants recall experimenting
as a positive part of the physics classes. They also perceive the regular procedure of writing lab reports as
positive. Two of them even use their old class notebooks as a reference. These classes conducted two to
three times as much experimenting as is customary for
Norwegian physics classes.
I’ve forgotten a lot. But when I look at these old
reports, I see that we did a lot of good experiments
and things.
We did lots of experiments. That meant much to
me, it made the subject interesting, and it gave support to the textbooks, it became much easier when
I could see.
Abrams, Parker, and Vadney (1984) write that “teachers
must precede laboratory exercises by directly related
classroom instruction which will facilitate application
and transfer of information and concepts” (p. 21). The
participants recalled that such a systematic approach,
with laboratory experiments and discussions, frequently facilitated their learning of textbook material.
I remember you [teacher] made those report sheets.
And we had to work together, to write, we worked
a lot, and we got help and followed each other,
without this cooperation I do not know what the
results would have been. And when the sheets were
completed, we had to hand them to you [teacher],
and you saw that they were OK and crossed them
off on your own list.
When I look at these old reports, I remember a lot.
Much of it was very interesting.
Before, at the hearing school, I never knew what
to write. I felt very insecure, and everything was
difficult. I did not know what the aim of the experiment was, what the question was, what I was supposed to find. The teacher talked and wrote at the
same time, and the others worked on their experiments and listened. But I did not hear anything of
course, and thought there was something wrong
with me. I tried to understand, but I was never able
to do a proper lab report. I tried it on my own but
. . . But at Bjørkåsen, there was a pattern to it, a
template on how to do this. So I could see what we
should do, and what I had to write down in the report. So in these old lab reports from the hearing
school I’ve written and written without really
knowing what I was doing.
Interviewer: Does that mean that you think we
worked systematically and orderly?
Yes, we were very systematic.
And it was easy to get an overview.
We had a goal, we knew what we were looking
for, and we had drawings, it’s visual, so it makes it
easier to grasp.
It was a regular procedure, how we should write
down the name of the experiment, what we did,
what were the results, what we should look for, and
the conclusion I think”
“What did you see” [to the other participant:], I
remember she [teacher] said “What did you see?”
Yes, and we had to write down our observations. . . . [I]t was very important to see.
And to think too: “Why?”
The lab reports were seldom done in a “fill in the
blanks” format, nor were they done by the students
alone. Instead, they followed a fixed procedure, and
suggestions for the writing were often made in class
discussions and written on the blackboard.
3. High expectations despite difficult subject. Participants remember the physics curriculum as difficult
and hard work. They felt pushed on before they were
ready to go on. But they also recall that they knew what
was expected of them; they knew what the curriculum
required:
It was a very difficult subject. I often felt I needed
help, and then I asked you [teacher]: “You must
show me,” and then: Oh yes like this! And then I
could move on, and it continued like this.
And the teacher pushed us on.
You drove us through the curriculum. . . . We
needed more time . . . but we went forward.
I remember, you were good at telling us what was
expected from us, what parts of the textbook, etc.,
in the junior year and also in the senior year, it was
Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections
good that you told us this in detail, so we knew
about it beforehand.
That’s right, you said: these are the demands,
you have to learn this, and so on, all the different
points.
[To teacher:] And “I won’t give in!” “You must
try to fight on—deaf students can do this,” you said
that, that was typical of you. “Don’t give in,” no,
and you pushed us onwards.
I had a feeling that we worked very fast, that I came
behind, it became hard for me after a while. Sometimes I only wanted to give in. And my classmate
tried to encourage me and push me on. And sometimes, when two of the others in the class sat there
discussing, two of us just gave in, sat back with our
arms crossed.
One of the participants points out the additional challenge for deaf students of attending to multiple visual
tasks:
The hearing students can listen to what is said by
voice and write at the same time, but deaf [students] cannot simultaneously write and comprehend what is said [in sign language].
Even ordinary schools find it difficult to complete the
curriculum in the final year with five lessons a week.
The participants received no extra time in the junior
year, but they got two additional weekly lessons in the
senior year. They also had two extra weekly lessons in
general science during the fundamental course; that is,
they got seven weekly lessons as opposed to the standard five. This is not much extra time considering the
low basic knowledge of science that these students had
when they entered Bjørkåsen.
So it seems true that they were pushed on, and the
amazing thing is that they were successful.
4. Illustrations. In physics, as in many other subjects, a good and clear drawing or sketch of a set up or
of a problem is crucial. Without this, understanding a
problem or an experiment is often very difficult. One
would have assumed that deaf students were drilled at
making drawings and sketches to illustrate objects and
relations that are often hard to express in words only.
But the experiences of these classes did not follow
that assumption.
65
Interviewer: I remember myself saying to you again
and again: “You must draw,” and you were reluctant to do that.
No, this thing about drawings—I think many
of the students do not like to draw—it was not only
in physics, it was in other subjects as well—we felt
a reluctance—we did not understand well that [we
ought to draw].
But as teachers, the participants see the need for drawings as a means for better understanding:
When I’ve been teaching, I’ve said that drawings
are very important. And I have made drawings myself, and copies, so that all the students must follow
them, and I have checked each one, and if they
made it too small, I have asked them to do it again,
bigger. There must be enough room. And it saves a
lot of time, if we study the figures in the book and
make good drawings. It is not enough just to write
and write, but to draw as well. Yes, very important.
Many deaf students do not appreciate the figures;
they think that it is just a “spicing” of the text or
something.
Interviewer: I think that this is not only true for
deaf students, but also for others that are taught in
a language that is not their own. I just read an article about that. They may have the same feeling,
that the teacher maybe asks them to draw because
they are not very well versed in the main or written
language, and then they feel reluctant.6
The participants now see the importance of good drawings and admit that they did not understand this when
they were students. Today, they encourage their own
students to make drawings.
5. Difficulties with the textbooks. The school had
carefully chosen textbooks among three possible sets.
We had considered the length of the sentences, the
amount of text, the print size, as well as which books
included the clearest figures and best layout.7 Physics
textbooks do not need to contain a lot of ordinary text,
but what is there is often very compact in content: it is
necessary to understand all of it.
These students remember struggling with the textbooks, both with the content and with the Norwegian
language used.
66
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:1 Winter 2002
But the books, we did work with the books too, but
the books were difficult,—but the subject was fun,
it was interesting.
Interviewer: If I remember correctly, usually at the
end of a lesson, when we had been through the
topic of the day, you got five to ten minutes to read
through the homework in the textbook to see if
there were any problems?
Yes, that’s right.
Yes, we did that.
Interviewer: And almost every time there were
some problems. But as I remember it, the problems
were in the Norwegian of the text, not in the
physics?
That’s right. Norwegian—it has always been
the language—I see this in my own students now
as well.
Right. In mathematics for instance, you
[teacher] gave us a text problem to solve, and we
had great trouble. And it was the same in physics;
the problem was the Norwegian language.
At school I had no trouble understanding, but
when I had to read my homework—. There were
many expressions and difficult concepts, and the
exercise problems were difficult, difficult to understand, but in the practical work, when we worked
together in the class, and we discussed this together, then I understood.
Interviewer: When you say that it was difficult
to read at home, can you remember if it was the
physics expressions that were difficult, or if it was
the general Norwegian text?
It was the physics expressions. When we had
problems to solve and hand in, then there were
words, and they were difficult, it was difficult to
“break down” the problem. I remember difficulties
with electricity and with collisions,—different
things, they were hard to grasp.
Interviewer: But it did help that we cooperated
in class?
Oh yes, definitely. We could discuss with the
others: “What does that mean?”—We could discuss in Sign language, oh yes, that helped. If I only
read by myself, I did not understand anything. But
when we discussed in Sign language, I got the connections between the different concepts and parts
of the problem. If I only read, then I felt an aversion, but with Sign language, then it was easy, I understood. And then, when I read about it afterwards, then I understood: Oh yes, of course! Then
I got the right associations. Discuss it in Sign language first, and then read afterwards, that was
good.
The participants stress that structured work and discussions in sign language prior to reading are key factors to understanding. The connections between the
different concepts and phenomena became clearer
through class activity. In working with the textbooks,
they remember trouble both with the Norwegian language of the texts, when reading in school, and with
the special physics expressions when doing homework.
6. Qualifications of their teacher. The former students are quite frank in their evaluation of my qualifications at the time, and I appreciate that:
Especially science and mathematics are great challenges for both teachers and students. This is because of the concepts involved and the lack of signs
or the ambiguity involved in the choice of signs. We
remember for instance that you as our teacher were
very confident and competent in the subjects science, mathematics, and physics. But the problem at
that time was how to pass on the content [of the
subject] in a way that helped us learn effectively
and well. You know Sign language [now], but we’re
sure you know what your signing was like at the
time. You were the only one at school who knew the
subject well. . . . We were quite lucky at the time to
get this education, since the subject is hard for
Deaf students and for teachers. The group formed
by the class, the interests and relationships between
students and teacher and their interchange is important.
But to know a [school] subject well is a great plus,
especially [for teachers] in lower and upper secondary school. If one feels confident in the subject content, because of good knowledge, and have good
personal qualities, then this person can be a good
teacher.
Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections
The participants view my academic qualifications as
making a positive contribution to their learning, in accordance with, for instance, Hashweh (1986); on the
other hand, they see my lack of fluency in NSL as a
drawback.
Summary of participants’ views on their physics education.
Participants regard their physics education as hard
work, with higher expectations than that to which they
were accustomed. The subject was difficult and included many new and strange concepts. What helped
them was the thorough work on these concepts, including the effort to find suitable signs to express the concepts. The Norwegian text and the exercises were hard,
but the free sign language cooperation in class made
things easier. They admit they did not then appreciate
the importance of drawings and sketches. The fact that
I, their teacher, knew the subject well helped, but my
lack of sign language skills was a disadvantage. They
enjoyed the many experiments and have kept the joy of
the subject, even if it was very demanding.
Participants’ Own Teaching Seen in the Light of
Their Physics Education
The participants were asked if any of the experiences
from their physics classes were now reflected in their
own way of teaching. This could be both practices they
wanted to carry over from their schooling, as well as
things they wanted to do differently. The answers concentrate on five aspects:
1. The use of fluent sign language. At the time
when these teachers were students, I was not a fluent
signer (see quote above). As native signers, the formerstudents-turned-teachers use their sign language fluency as a tool in their teaching:
When the teacher knows sign language, then the
interchange between teacher and student can flow
without interruption.
When I tell my students something in sign language, then they understand.
Well, the most important aspect [of my own teaching vs. that which I got from you (teacher)] is the
67
Sign language. That must be clear. So that’s
different. But if one of my students does not understand, I try to explain it another way [as you
(teacher) did], because I know that the most important thing is language and communication.
From the flow of the interview, it is clear that this last
statement also relates to the way they themselves were
taught and to the discussions in class.
2. Use of class discussions in the same way as their
own experience. As teachers, the participants seem to
favor cooperative learning and discussion among their
own students:
When I’ve been teaching science, I’ve been very
conscious to remember how we used to discuss
things in class.
If one has problems, then to be able to cooperate
with others, to do group work, to discuss, this is
clearly positive.
In this respect, a small class is seen as a pedagogical
drawback (keep in mind that the total population of
Deaf students in Norway is between 30 and 50 per age
cohort, and the physics classes consisted of four and
two students respectively):
Larger classes give more support, and it is easier to
discuss in a larger class, it gives more [opportunities for] interchange.
A large school [for Deaf students] is good, a small
school is not good. A large school means that the
students can meet more people, other students, it
means a thriving environment. Larger classes give
more support, it is easier to have discussions, to
chat, the discussions make things more easy, there
is more interchange.
Yes, a signing environment for Deaf students is
very important. When there are only a few students
in a class, two or three—no, we need larger groups.
This last part touches on a hot topic in the political
debate on deaf education in Norway: whether to educate deaf students as close to home as possible or to
centralize education for deaf students. In upper secondary school, there are many branches to choose from
68
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:1 Winter 2002
for each student. Given the small number of Deaf students, a policy of education close to home and in a signing environment will limit the educational choices for
deaf students compared to their hearing counterparts.
This is a limitation that is not based in the lack of hearing but on economical and pedagogical considerations
when dealing with the small number of students. The
political debate is ongoing. A committee report to the
Norwegian government (Sunnanå et al., 2000) recommends decentralization in upper secondary school.
However, the participants in this study seem to favor a
more centralized educational system with larger groups
and more choices. I would fully agree with them on
this aspect and would prefer larger (five to nine signing
students) groups of students to smaller ones. With the
small number of deaf students in Norway, this will limit
the choice of location and, to a certain degree, even the
topics deaf students can study if they want to do this in
signing settings. In my eyes, the importance of students’
cooperative learning is such that a recommendation for
decentralization should be made only if it is based on a
very strong wish from the student in question.
3. Explanation of the concepts. The participants all
give similar weight in their own teaching to the explanation of the concepts and the content of the lesson, as
was done when they were students:
But one thing: the explanation of the concepts.
And also the written problems: read the problem!
Again and again, as we did before. This I do the
same way.
Yes, it is important. They must grasp the content.
I do not want to rush through the subject, and be
finished, I want my students to understand the
substance of it. . . . To just rush through the book
and then get a patting on the head as a reward, because they are finished . . . but they don’t understand anything . . . that is not my way. If I pick the
parts from the book that are the most important,
and we work through this thoroughly, so they understand, then I am satisfied.
Always, when a [hearing] teacher comes to a Deaf
[teacher], they ask: “What is the sign for —,” but
we cannot always answer, it is difficult. But to explain and explain the concept, that is important.
When the concept is understood, then—Some
teachers think that if they use the right sign, then
the students will automatically understand.
An explanation is necessary.
Another thing that’s important is the lack of sign
language for teachers, sign expressions for concepts in the different subjects, we should have had
advice about that.
But there has been a development.
Yes, it is moving forward, but it is still not good
enough. It is coming along, it is better than before.
This is the same for all subjects.
I wish we could have a group that worked with
these things, teachers from different grades but
with the same subject.
But it is a problem to get the time. Everything
takes a lot of time. We are discussing projects in
the different subjects, and then to discuss signs in
addition, that is difficult.8
We see that they emphasize the explanation and understanding of the content of the lesson. To have a sign
for a concept is not enough; the concept itself must be
explained and understood. But there is still a lack of
sign language terminology to use in the different subjects, and they would like to be able to work on that
problem. This is a question of the student’s acquiring
cognitive language proficiency (cf. J. Cummins),9 both
in NSL and in Norwegian.
4. Experiments. Participants want to do more experiments but are hampered in the primary and lower
secondary school because of lack of equipment. They
also want to include lab reports in their instruction as
they had done when they were students:
Maybe if they see things, then they comprehend
and understand. And I think that we learn by trying and experimenting ourselves; I see my students,
they are very interested in physics and science and
everything, stars and atoms and . . . I get quite
speechless.
Explore things, try, put it together in different ways
. . . “Why does it not work this way?” . . . Try another way, and it works: “Oh yes!” and they understand, and then they can explain to each other,
that’s what I think, but I do not know.
Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections
69
And experiments . . . I’ve been thinking of doing
more of those, like we did, but it is difficult, because
we do not have much equipment or a laboratory
room at our school. This, I think, is a drawback at
our school; we should have done lots of experiments like we did before [at Bjørkåsen].
tary/lower secondary school, which makes it difficult
to conduct experiments.
And the reports of the experiments, when I think
back, we should have done a lot of that, but it’s not
easy to really do that.
As Deaf teachers, the participants discussed their
thoughts regarding the important aspects of having
Deaf teachers involved in the education of deaf students. Apart from their signing ability, and their importance as role models, they perceive other important
roles for Deaf teachers:
5. Working with the textbooks and problems on paper.
Participants noted that their current students have
similar difficulties reading the texts and making drawings as they did when they were students:
Now, when I look at myself, I work hard with my
students, we try to make them read the whole text
of a problem, read it, and I nag them about this
again and again.
Interviewer: I remember I was nagging you
about this too: “Find the question! What is the
question?” I remember going on and on about this.
And also that I said: “Draw! Make drawings, large,
clear drawings and figures, and show it that way!
Yes, that’s right, you did that.
We have the same trouble with our students.
But we must never give in, because it helps the
students when they have to translate [from Norwegian], to explain in Sign language.
Participants are focused on helping their students to
understand, to grasp the content of the subject at hand.
But they are frustrated by the shortage of time,10 and
opportunities to do science experiments and explore
texts in Norwegian with their students, and by the lack
of signs for certain concepts.
Summary of participants’ own teaching seen in the light of
their physics education. These participants incorporate
the teaching strategies they encountered as physics students. They emphasize students’ understanding of the
concept or the subject matter and cooperative learning
experiences in class. But there are two main differences.
One is that they are fluent signers. This gives them the
skill to explain and participate in students’ discussions,
thus enhancing learning. The other difference is the
lack of laboratory room and equipment in the elemen-
Participants’ Own Roles in the Schools for Deaf
Students
In the schools for the deaf, there is a great emphasis
on language and the social and linguistic development of the deaf children. It is important that Deaf
teachers enter the area and teach other subjects, so
that the general level of knowledge in the Deaf society can be elevated.
From my own experience as a student before, I see
that the pedagogy is not the same if the student is
hearing or if s/he is deaf. It is different to be deaf.
I myself can feel what it is like to be Deaf and I
meet my deaf students as a Deaf person. I feel I
have a message to give. It has much to do with empathy.
Now I am part of the administration at school, and
I am interested in the organizational system, but I
like to do this in combination with ordinary teaching. Because there are no other deaf persons in the
administration, I want to see if there is some contribution I can make.
Summary of the Findings
The participants consider the situation for the deaf
students in Norway today as considerably better than
it was in their own childhood, due to the change in general attitude toward deaf persons and sign language.
But they anticipate a continuing lack of information for
any deaf person, because he or she cannot take part in
the continuous informal information exchange that
goes on in the hearing population.
They also state that, especially after the first years
of schooling, the teacher should have a sound knowl-
70
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:1 Winter 2002
edge base in the subject he or she teaches.11 This view
coincides with that of Titus (1995) and Lang (1994b).
But they also consider the sign language skills of the
teacher as essential, and they see their own roles as
Deaf teachers of deaf students as a way they can relate
to the students’ experience as no hearing teacher can.
The participants all state that completing the physics course was difficult. They attribute their success to
hard work and to the systematic way in which their instruction was conducted. They value the opportunity
to have class discussions using sign language. They
thought the discussions boosted their understanding.
This was especially true for the large amount of work
devoted to the acquisition of the physics concepts.
They have brought the systematic work, the concept
explanations, and the class discussions with them to
their own ways of teaching. The factors that they seem
to view as most important in the science education of
deaf students are, in order of importance implied from
the data:
1. The teacher’s ability to communicate fluently in
sign language with the students;
2. Clear explanations of science concepts and connections to other concepts;
3. The opportunities for classroom discussions;
4. The subject knowledge of the teacher;
5. The teacher’s ability to adapt to the needs of
the students;
6. Structured lessons and clear expectations;
7. Experiments as experiences;
8. Experiment reports and drawings;
9. Access to information; and
10. Time-on-task. Additional time is needed to
give the students that information and experience that
they do not otherwise have and to compensate for the
fact that they cannot “listen” and read or write or work
simultaneously.
Discussion
The participants generally agree that fluent signing is
of utmost importance for teachers working with deaf
students. At the same time, they describe successful
teaching strategies used by a less-fluent teacher, including structured lessons and open, mutually respectful communication. Additionally, the clear explanation
of concepts and connections made between concepts
was crucial to their successful mastery of the material.
The second point, that concepts are explained and
connected to other concepts, seems to be the crucial
one, even if the participants, as implied from their remarks, place less importance on this than on the Sign
language communication.
If we compare the experiences and issues raised by
these participants with those of Menchel (1978), many
of the shortcomings of the science education for deaf
students at his time were the same as those experienced
by participants. The students interviewed by Lang,
Dowaliby, and Anderson (1995) placed high importance on the teacher’s attitude. Flexibility, willingness
to help, and being warm and friendly enhanced effective teaching. This specific question was not raised in
this study, due to the obvious reasons of personal
friendship between teacher/interviewer and participants, but from some of the quotes above it would seem
that importance was placed on this aspect as well. In
analyzing data regarding teaching strategy, Lang, Dowaliby, and Anderson (1995) found that teachers who
provided reinforcement and feedback, involved the students in learning activities, and used visual aids were
seen as more effective. Further, the teacher who was
willing to go outside the scope of the actual lesson in
order to explain the topic better to the students, and
who related new learning material to things already
known, was also seen as teaching effectively. Students
appreciated a clear syllabus and clear expectations.
However, the main category of critical teaching incidences was related to communication. Here, the teacher’s use of facial expression, body language and mime,
as well as sensitivity to communication preference, was
seen as critical for effective teaching. In this unstructured response study by Lang, Dowaliby, and Anderson, teachers’ knowledge of subject matter was not frequently recalled during the interviews. Otherwise, their
findings are consistent with the findings in this study.
In a structured response study by Lang, McKee, and
Conner (1994), however, in which students viewed a
list of characteristics, knowledge of course content was
the most important characteristic rated by the students.
The participants saw the cooperative work in class,
the discussions, and the experiments as very important
Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections
to their success. The prevailing theory in science education over the last several years has been personal constructivism, based in part on works of giants like Piaget
and others (Duit & Treagust, 1995; Marı́n & Bennarroch, 1994; Piaget, 1980). According to this view, each
individual constructs his or her understanding of the
world from the experiences and faculties available to
that person. According to Vygotsky (Karpov & Haywood, 1998; Vygotskij & Davydov, 1997), an individual
will learn in dialogue with his or her surroundings, including other people. Metacognitive processes, as well
as the tools necessary for solving subject-domain problems, can be “mediated” from other people. Cognitive
mediation of children involves teaching, as well as interaction with other adults and more knowledgeable
peers.
Again according to Vygotsky (Bonkowski, Gavalek, & Akamatsu, 1991), learning can take place only in
what he termed the “Zone of Proximal Development,”
that is, on the borders of what the learner already
knows and can learn. In a group of peers, these zones
will only partly overlap, and collaboration between the
learners should move the zones along more effectively
than if one learner was taught, or studied, alone. This
may imply that learning is enhanced when a group of
students is allowed to interact constructively.
Recommendations for Further Research
This study suggests several avenues for further research. The effects of deaf students’ communication
skills and preferences on learning subject matter
should be studied further. The importance of the existence of a functional terminology for the subject matter
in the language of the learners should also be investigated. Is it enough for the understanding and internalization of the concepts and phenomena to have terms
borrowed from the language of the textbook? Is learning enhanced when the subject matter can be explained
and discussed in the learners’ own language?
The effect of class size, especially with regard to
the number of classmates sharing the language, should
be explored. This also has connections to the issue of
cooperative learning. The desire for classes larger than
a minimum size is implied by the participants’ wish for
large schools for Deaf students.
71
The effect of establishing high expectations for the
students in order to pass the stated goal in the allotted
time needs to be further examined. The participants in
this study are former students who belonged to pioneer
classes. They were driven on by each other as well as by
their teacher, and of six physics students, five wanted
to continue studying science or science-related topics.
Although this may be an exceptional case, further research may support the raising of expectations by
teachers for their deaf learners, as Schleper (1995) suggested.
More research is also needed on the effect of
teacher qualifications in the education of Deaf learners.
How important is it for the teacher to be, as one participant put it, “confident and competent in the subjects”? How important is the teacher’s competency and
fluency in the students’ language? Are other teacher
characteristics, such as flexibility and respect for the
students, also of importance, as suggested by the data?
Recommendations for Teaching
The interviews in this study indicated that Deaf teachers believe it is critical that a teacher show respect for
deaf students and their language and establish high expectations for them to achieve. To accomplish this,
teachers need to be as well prepared as possible in both
the subject matter and in the language used for instruction. The students should be encouraged to cooperate
with each other in the learning process and to ask questions and be inquisitive. Expectations should be clearly
stated, the courses clearly structured and interlocked,
and enough experience and explanations of basic concepts given for the student to internalize the new
knowledge and associate it in a productive and sound
way with what he or she already knows.
Received July 19, 2000; revisions received April 1, 2001; accepted
May 3, 2001
Notes
1. Further information about the school system of Norway
in general can be found on a website (KUF, 1999), http://odin.
dep.no/kuf/engelsk/education/014081-120036/index-dok000b-n-a.html.
2. Standard deviation has little meaning with six students
only, and the range is not given for privacy reasons.
72
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7:1 Winter 2002
3. After 1976, there was no longer any difference in the regulations governing the curriculum for deaf and other students.
4. After 1997, there was a special curriculum in NSL, Norwegian spoken/written language, and English, for deaf students.
In addition, the curriculum on music changed for one on rhythmic and drama.
5. The sign creation and results are reported and discussed
as an article with dictionary accessible on the Internet (Roald,
2000).
6. The citation referred to in the interview was from Duran,
Dugan, and Weffer (1998) and shows that bright Spanishspeaking American students in a voluntary college preparatory
course were also reluctant to making drawings.
7. We had a choice between three nationally approved sets of
textbooks. Those chosen were by Isnes, Nilsen, & Sandås (1986).
8. Even if the lessons that each teacher in special education
has to give are less than that for teachers for students without
special needs, the workload of these teachers is higher than for
others, so that time for extra work is hard to find.
9. Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills and Communicative Academic Learning Proficiency, http://www.iteachi
learn.com/cummins/bicscalp.html.
10. They are supposed to cover the “normal” amount of subject matter in the same amount of time as in “normal” schools.
11. In the Norwegian system, a teacher in the comprehensive school has a 4-year teachers’ college degree. This qualifies
him or her to teach all subjects to all grades 1–10. A teacher in
upper secondary school has a university degree in the appropriate subject, or a vocational education, along with a teacher’s
course.
References
Abrams, M., Parker, J., & Vadney, S. (Eds.). (1984). Promoting a
clear path to technical education: Mathematics and science skills
essential for hearing-impaired students entering post-secondary
technical programs. Washington, DC: The Model Secondary
School for the Deaf and The National Technical Institute
for the Deaf.
Basilier, T. (1973). Hørselstap og egentlig døvhet i sosialpsykiatrisk
perspektiv (Hearing loss and genuine deafness in a social psychiatric perspective). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Bjørkåsen Videregående Skole. (1988–1989). Examinations protocols. Kept at Statsarkivet (the official archives) in Bergen.
Bonkowski, N., Gavalek, J., & Akamatsu, T. (1991). Education
and the social construction of mind: Vygostskyan perspectives on
the cognitive development of deaf children: Advances in cognition, education and deafness (pp. 185–194). Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Bunch, G. O. (1987). The curriculum and the hearing impaired student: Theoretical and practical considerations. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Caccamise, F., Smith, N., Yust, V., & Beykirch, H. (1981). Sign
language instructional materials for speech, language and
hearing professionals. Journal of Academy of Rehabilitative
Audiology, 14, 33–61.
Duran, B. J., Dugan, T., & Weffer, B. (1998). Language minority
students in high school: The role of language in learning biology concepts. Science Education, 82(3), 311–341.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students conceptions and
constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 46–69). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
Eikli, G. (2000). Eilkirapprten om kartlegging av hørselshemmede
født 1980 eller senere (Ministerial report ). Oslo, Norway:
Kirke-, Utdannings og Forskningsdepartementet.
Fysikk deltagelse (participation in physics), editorial. (1999). Fra
Fysikkens Verden, 3(1999), 123–124.
Gregory, S. (1997). Maths and science in the education of deaf
children. Deafness and Education, 21(3), 63–64.
Grønlie, S. M. (1995). Når noen ikke hører (When someone does
not hear). Bergen, Norway: Døves Forlag.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1986, April). Effects of subject-matter knowledge
in the teaching of biology and physics. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Haugen, R. (1998). Variasjon og endring i sogndalsdialekten. Unpublished advanced degree, University of Bergen, Bergen.
Isnes, A., Nilsen, O. T., & Sandås, A. (1986). Fysikk for den videregående skolen. Oslo: NKI-forlaget.
Karpov, Y. V., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate
Vygotsy’s concept of mediation. American Psychologist,
53(1), 27–36.
Kirke-og Undervisningsdepartementet. (1985). Stortingsmelding: Om visse sider ved spesialundervisinga (Vol. 61). Oslo,
Norway: KUD.
KUF. (1999). The Educational system of Norway [web pages].
European Union through Eurybase. Available: http://
www.eurydice.org/Eurybase/Files/NOEN/NOEN.html
[1999, 10.11]
Lane, H. (1993). The mask of benevolence : Disabling the deaf community. New York: Vintage Books.
Lang, H. G. (1994a). The Doppler Effect: A demonstration for
teaching physics to deaf and hard-of-hearing students in a mainstreamed setting. Paper presented at A Futures Agenda:
Working Conference on Science for Persons with Disabilities, Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Lang, H. G. (1994b). Science for deaf students: Looking into the
next millennium. Paper presented at A Futures Agenda: A
working conference on Science for Persons with Disabilities,
Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Lang, H. G., Dowaliby, F. J., & Anderson, H. P. (1995). Critical
teaching incidents: Recollections of deaf college students.
American Annals of the Deaf, 139, 119–127.
Lang, H. G., McKee, B. G., & Conner, K. (1994). Characteristics of effective teachers: A descriptive study of the perceptions of faculty and deaf college students. American Annals
of the Deaf, 138, 252–259.
Lang, H. G., & Propp, G. (1982). Science education for hearingimpaired students: State-of-the-art. American Annals of the
Deaf, 127, 860–869.
Livingston, S. (1997). Rethinking the education of deaf students:
Theories and practice from a teacher’s perspective. Portsmouth,
NH: Heineman.
Marı́n, N., & Bennarroch, A. (1994). A comparative study of Pi-
Norwegian Deaf Teachers’ Reflections
agetian and constructivist work on conceptions in science.
International Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 1–15.
Moores, D. F. (1987). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles,
and practices (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A. E., Gonzales, E. J.,
Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1998). Mathematics and science
achievement in the final year of secondary school: IEA’s Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Boston: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Neuman, D. (1986). The origin of arithmetic skills. A phenomenographic approach (Vol. 62). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis.
O’Donnell, A., & Adenwalla, D. (1991). Using cooperative learning and concept maps with deaf college students, Advances in cognition, education and deafness (pp. 348–355). Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Peterson, S. A. (1995). Utviklingen av tegnspråknorsk i Norge
(The development of Signed Norwegian in Norway). Unpublished term paper, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In M. Piatelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam
Chomsky (vol. 1, pp. 23–34). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ramsden, P. (Ed.). (1988). Improving learning: New perspectives
(1st ed.) (Vol. 1). London: Kogan Page.
Renström, L. (1988). Conceptions of matter: A phenomenographic
approach (Vol. 69). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Unversitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Roald, I. (2000,). Terminology in the making—Physics terminology
in Norwegian Sign Language, [Internet publication]. The
Deaf Action Committee for Sign Writing. Available http://
www.signwriting.org/forums/lingustics/ling032.html
[2000, August]
Rådet for Videregående Opplæring. (1988a). Rundskriv 33: Karakterstatisikk. (Grade statistics)
73
Rådet for Videregående Opplæring. (1988b). Tilrettelegging av
eksamen (Adaptation of examination form). In G. Mathiesen
(Ed.). Oslo: RVO.
Rådet for Videregående Opplæring. (1989). Rundskriv 33: Karakterstatistikk. (Grade statistics)
Sander, T. (1980). Med landets døve gjennom hundre år (With the
Deaf of the nation through a hundred years): Bergen Døveforening 1880–1980: Første del 1880–1930 (Vol. 1). Bergen:
Bergen Døveforening.
Schleper, D. R. (1995). Well, what do you expect? Perspectives on
Deafness and Deaf Education, 13, 2–3.
Shaw, J. M. (1997). Threats to the validity of science performance assessments for English language learners. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34, 721–743.
Stewart, D. A. (1996). The unwritten curriculum: Teaching deaf
students in the ’90s. In G. P. Stefanich, K. I. Norman, & J.
Egelston-Dodd (Eds.), Teaching science to students with disabilities: Experiences and perceptions of classroom teachers and
science educators (pp. 335–342). Rochester, NY: The Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
Sunnanå, S., Peterson, S. A., Stien, K., Gerritsen, S., Nordaune,
E., Bakken, A., Jonassen, B., Nordeng, A., Beil, H. G., Falkenberg, E.-S., & Fylling, I. (2000). – høre eller ikke høre Rapport fra arbeidsgruppe til å utrede framtidig organisering,
dimensjonereing, lokalisering og finansiering av det Statlige
spesialpedagogiske støttesystemet for høreselshemmede (To hear
or not to hear:- Report from a work group on the evaluation
of the future organizing, dimensioning, localizing, and financing of the national special pedagogical supportive
system for the hearing impaired) (committee report to the
government). Oslo, Norway: Kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet.
Titus, J. C. (1995). The concept of fractional number among
deaf and hard of hearing students. American Journal of the
Deaf, 140, 255–261.
Vygotskij, L. S., & Davydov, V. V. (1997). Educational psychology.
Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.